(But this much, I can tell you: in a country with a large deficit, a generally overspending government, and a desperate need for stimuli to work and to enterprise, widdling away billions on inheritance tax cuts and marriage tax breaks is high up the list of things you probably shouldn’t do. No-one should be in any doubt about the fact that supporting the Tories for their economic competence is largely a matter of faith.)

Yup, we’re going to get a lie sandwich in the face, which we absolutely do not deserve. So don’t forget – establishment figures like those ordering the articles and those calling their tune are only scared because we, the Lib Dems, represent a threat to their “arrangements”. And believe me, I’m fully aware of how ridiculous that sounds – when a mainstream political party led by a decent chap constitutes a fundamental threat to the status quo in media, politics and public life, something has gone badly wrong with the system. And so it has.

But on one subject, and one only, they are right to be afraid. Because on political reform, the Liberal Democrats are the real thing, the bona fide radicals, and political reform would spell the end of all the current hegemonies across public discourse. No matter what happens tomorrow, political reform is now the main event, and will be until some sort of reaction occurs at the very top of politics (I hear rumours of a mass rally in London this Saturday, regardless of who wins or doesn’t on Thursday). This is why they’re so afraid – and we did this. Little yellow us.* So keep calm, wear a quiet smile, and fucking carry on. You’re doing great.

*With a little help from the Telegraph. I do wonder if they really understood what they were starting with the expenses scandal. It’s a nice coincidence that the editor who oversaw that has been pushed out of the group tonight isn’t it.

If the gilts fall by 2 points, you bet there’ll be all those headlines (2 points would put them back to where they were about a week ago, you know in those dark days when Britain couldn’t borrow and honest householders had to pay 4% for their mortgage debt)

and we did this. Little yellow us….With a little help from the Telegraph

And some unwitting help from Labour and the tories, no? They had to converge on policy and practice in order for there to be space for a ‘real alternative’. It’s true that one can barely tell one from the other half the time* but:

political reform would spell the end of all the current hegemonies across public discourse.

Really? All of it? Don’t get me wrong, as a libertarian with anarcho leanings I’m delighted at the idea of smashing hegemonies,** but it seems a trifle optimistic to assume that we’ll enter a new dawn of neo-Enlightenment – and the polloi will put down their copies of the Star andn Heat in favour of Locke and Hume and reassess the rights and responsibilities of the individual – just because they get offered a referendum on STV.

*“The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which…”

** well, the ones I haven’t invested time and effort getting into, anyway.

“we’ll enter a new dawn of neo-Enlightenment – and the polloi will put down their copies of the Star andn Heat in favour of Locke and Hume and reassess the rights and responsibilities of the individual”

Eh? But no-one need ask them to. It’s much simpler than you are suggesting. Perhaps I should have specified “public political discourse”. A PR system will allow smaller parties to make headway against the giants and no-one will have to vote tactically with their first vote. The basis on which the Murdoch papers or the Mirror have urged people to back the two large parties “for safety” will be largely and permanently disrupted. That’s all that needs to happen to break open that particular hegemony. And the breaking of the political hegemony speaks for itself.

Or is your point more that, presented with a referendum, people will vote for the status quo and retain the FPTP system? (I don’t think we will actually get a referendum on STV for some years, by the way.)

My point was twofold; the first was just bridling slightly at the ‘public discourse’ thing, but fair enough – you did mean ‘public political discourse – I was just being somewhat vexatiously pedantic coz I haven’t had my coffee yet. But it supports the second point, which is indeed that people will want to stick with the status quo. For why?

– they will go with what they think they know and think they understand.

– if you think the media are lining up in attack mode now, it’s nothing compared to how they’d mobilise themselves in the face of a concrete threat. And whilst I concede there are a multitude of arguments in favour of electoral reform, just think how wonderfully simplistic and ‘bloid-friendly the ones against are. “It will mean MORE RACISTS.” “Do you want MUSLIM EXTREMISTS in parliament?” not to mention the gays, the greens, the trotskyists, neo-trotskyists, crypto-trotskyists* etc etc ad absurdam.

However, do you not think that this election in particular has brought to light a public feeling of discontent and distrust not only with regard to politicians, but to the media itself and the ‘they can’t tell me who to vote for’ mentality which has come to attention by way of the leadership debates, the topsy-turvy media support and unprojected polling patterns?

Furthermore, is it not about time, particularly with a newly engaged electorate for the idea of political reform to become all the more foreseeable with the greatest possibility of change now more than ever?